Re: Atheists are the biggest fools on Earth

Jim Spaza wrote:

> John Harshman wrote:
>
>>Jim Spaza wrote:
[snip]
>>>>How would we assess anything other than the physical evidence so as to
>>>>introduce it into play?
>>>
>>>
>>>Assess it the way you would assess anything else. Do the research and
>>>see if it is real. Here's the problem, however. The typical scientist
>>>has raised the bar for what is real to such a high level (testable in
>>>controlled conditions, peer review of exact same data, etc.) that most
>>>life couldn't be determined to exist, much less the supernatural.
>>>
>>>For instance, we know that there are various aspects of human existence
>>>that cannot be analyzed scientifically. For example, human
>>>consciousness, emotions, and 6th senses (ESP, intuition) all exist to
>>>one extent or another. You and I know this. But, we cannot test them
>>>scientifically in any way.
>>
>>I will agree that the first two exist. Not the last one. And of course
>>we can test them scientifically. We may not be able to figure out what
>>makes them tick (though scientists are working on those questions) but
>>we can verify their existence and properties.
>
> Well, we can INFER that they exist, but not prove it. Until we can
> reproduce at will, control, and maybe even create the parts of the
> brain that affect them, we cannot prove that emotions and consciousness
> exist.

It's highly frustrating when you demonstrate in a single paragraph that
you have learned nothing at all from our discussions. "Prove" is not
something science does. Science makes inferences. Inferences can be so
strong that we might as well call them proof, for all practical
purposes, but nevertheless all we ever have is inference from data. We
can "prove" that emotions and consciousness exist just as much, or as
little, as we can "prove" that atoms or Australia exist.

>>>So, we'd have to agree upon a less strict form of science in order to
>>>agree on the meaning of the results of any testing.
>>
>>>For example, if we both saw an angel appear in front of us (wings,
>>>halo, ethereal form, strange music in background, voice in our heads
>>>not from outside our body like normal), then could we both not agree
>>>that a supernatural being probably really did appear to both of us? We
>>>saw it. We heard it. And I'm sure that we rip the room apart looking
>>>for lasers, holography equipment, and special audio speakers.
>>
>>Eyewitness testimony is better than nothing, even to science. I would
>>agree that something odd and with an objective existence had happened.
>>Whether I would call it a supernatural being is another question. But
>>what you are asking is apparently to relax the rules of scientific
>>evidence enough to allow...what? I can't tell. You have not answered the
>>question about what sorts of evidence could be brought to bear on the
>>question of evolution/whatever else, or how that evidence might be
>>judged. I have no idea. Once we abandon the rules of science, I don't
>>see any way of evaluating hypotheses reliably.
>
> If the rules of science do not allow analysis of an event or entity,
> then relax the rules until you can do so. For example, in the case of
> an angelic encounter, relax all the rules about testing in controlled
> conditions, reproducing the encounter, and peer review (as there
> probably would be no ability to record such an event). OK, now that
> half of traditional science has been rendered ineffective, turn to
> sources and practices that might have some effectiveness, in this case
> theology. We're not in the realm of faith, just looking to
> unconventional sources of information.

The problem is that when you relax the rules, you end up with useless
data. Similar relaxations of the rules allow you to "prove" that Uri
Geller talks to aliens, bends spoons, sees through walls, etc.

> If the Bible gives a fairly good description of angels and if we know
> that there was no known natural cause of such an encounter (cameras,
> projection equipment, holography, drugs, etc.), then why NOT look to
> the Bible for at least some possible answers? And, if the Bible has
> not yet been analyzed as a reliable source for information, then we
> would first need to study and analyze it.

You have relaxed the rules to the extent that there is no rational way
of evaluating whatever you get.

> I know that it may not be what most scientists are used to, but the
> dynamics of this situation necessitate unconventional, and perhaps
> untested, means.

What if those means are useless? What if they are incapable of telling
you anything about the phenomenon being studied, or even if that
phenomenon exists?

[snip]

>>>>If you ask me, it's a lot more reasonable to suppose that the Genesis
>>>>account is flawed (or misinterpreted if you prefer) than to jump through
>>>>bizarre hoops in an attempt to save the literal text.
>>>
>>>In a skeptical sense, taking a look only at the Genesis accounts,
>>>then...yes. I would agree with you. It's just that the Genesis
>>>accounts could be accurate. Well, if all of my other Christian
>>>experience indicates that God as specified in the Bible is real, then
>>>what should I be led to think about the Genesis accounts?
>>
>>What makes you think that these are so closely related? Why couldn't the
>>God specified in the Bible be real without there having been a real
>>6-day creation?
>
>>>From an inference of the accuracy of the whole Bible given the parts
> that have been established as accurate. It's like a scientific white
> paper, perhaps. If you study and analyze 50% of that paper and
> conclude that the first 50% is entirely accurate, then wouldn't you be
> more likely to infer that the untested parts are probably accurate too?

That might be my first guess, but it would be a very weak inference. The
true test is to study and analyze the remaining 50%. There is no
necessary relationship. One part could be right and the other wrong. And
that's hardly a rare event. I've seen plenty of papers like that.

> I mean, if you couldn't analyze the remaining 50% and had to
> have...faith.

Faith is not something I find useful in determining truth. But in the
case of the bible we *can* analyze the remaining 50%, so we don't have
to rely on faith anyway.

> The God of the Bible could be entirely real without there having been a
> 6-day (24 hour/day) creation event. (I don't believe in the 24-hour /
> 6 actual day event, by the way, for Biblical and scientific reasons.)

Good. Now you have to ask yourself whether you have to believe in
separate creation either.

>>>As an aside, I really am beginning to think that God designed this
>>>human life to be experienced for oneself, not just learned as knowledge
>>>from another. When someone has a supernatural encounter with God or an
>>>angel (or even a demon), it tends to make a believer out of you. And
>>>then everything else is easier to believe.
>>
>>If you base all this on your personal spiritual experiences, there is no
>>way for me to argue with you or for us to communicate. You must believe
>>what you must, and physical evidence, i.e. evidence accessible to anyone
>>other than yourself, is irrelevant. But I still have to wonder if
>>bibilical literalism is the necessary consequence of whatever spiritual
>>experience you have, or if you are confusing non-literalism with
>>atheism, as you have done so often in the past.
>
> I have NEVER confused non-literalism with atheism. If I ever gave that
> impression, then I apologize. It's just that atheists tend to view the
> Bible as more figurative, not literal; but, non-literalism and atheism
> are not directly linked and are not demanded of each other.

Actually, atheists in my experience tend to view the bible as quite
literal, just wrong. Some of the most vehement biblical literalists on
this newsgroup are atheists. (I don't mean "literalist" in the sense
that they think the bible is literally true, only that they think it's
supposed to be taken that way.)

> Biblical literalism is not a necessary consequence of any experience
> that I've ever had. It's just difficult to logically declare that the
> verses concerning angels and demons (fallen angels) are purely
> figurative when I've literally encountered them both. By the way, I
> only mention this because you brought up my rationale for literally
> believing the Bible (at least, most of it) and not for the purpose of
> persuading others to listen to me because I've had these encounters.

So we are agreed that your personal spiritual experiences are irrelevant
to any discussions of evolution?

[snip]

>>>>From a skeptical, scientific standpoint where all one has is religious
>>>knowledge which is learned and not experienced first hand, I would
>>>agree with you.
>>
>>Then there is no point in discussing this. You can't communicate your
>>personal revelation to me, and anything else is irrelevant to you.
>
> Oh, please. Science is definitely relevant to me. Just because I
> don't come to the same conclusions that you do given the same discovery
> doesn't mean that I don't care or appreciate the discoveries.

Who knows? Whenever we get to anything of the sort, you say something
like "I agree that your point is valid if god does not exist". You never
discuss any conclusions you come to from a scientific perspective. My
theory is that's because all your conclusions are driven by faith or
revelation that is not communicable to others. If I'm wrong about that,
why do we always hit that wall?

[snip]

> I honestly am not yet convinced that my biological ancestors were
> one-celled organisms. But, my being here, not constantly throwing out
> religious fluff trying to convert people at every step, but trying to
> discuss evolution, should be an indication of my desire to learn from
> science.

Hard to tell. You emerge from your shell of faith, but you keep ducking
back into it whenever you have problems at any point in the discussion.
Can we agree that however convincing your faith and personal revelation
may be to you, they have no point in the discussion because they are not
available to anyone other than yourself?

By the way, there seems no reason to go all the way back billions of
years to bacteria. Why not just start with humans and apes?

[snip]

>>>Things that don't lend themselves too well to testing, such as a person
>>>with verifiable terminal cancer who is now cancer free and who swears
>>>it is the work of God. I've known people like that. Drugs and
>>>radiation treatments were don't anything for them. Then, a few weeks
>>>later, there is no sign of the cancer anywhere in their bodies.
>>
>>And you think this is evidence for something? Evidence for what? There
>>are also people who are cancer free and swear it's the work of Allah, or
>>Ganesha, or L. Ron Hubbard. Are they right? How can we tell?
>
> Learn about each of those religions. See if those religions are
> inconsistent in any way as any Supreme Being will be one of consistent
> logic and order given the logic and order of the universe which He
> created. Eliminate the ones that are inconsistent and see which ones
> that you have left. Now, study each one remaining and see what they
> have to say about healing.
>
> I know what you're getting at.

No, I don't think you do. If you use miracle cures as evidence for
Christianity, they are equally good evidence for whatever other
religions are claimed to produce them too. I also think your personal
bias prevents you from objectively analyzing the relative internal
consistencies of your religion vs. others. Speaking from outside them
all, I don't see that much difference. The bible stories don't seem as
weird as the Ramayana to you because you are used to them; that's all.

> This WILL require a relaxing of your
> rules of science. Nothing I can do about that. But, when you enter
> the world of the supernatural, you need more than a ruler, bunsen
> burner, and a microscope. You need spiritual instruments.

Not reasonable. The minimal requirement of science is that there must be
some way for others to verify your findings. Have you read anything
about the sad history of parapsychology? What happens when you relax the
standards is that you get garbage.

[snip]

>>>Maybe this is where one of the problems comes into focus. It's all
>>>about perception and what is evidence enough for each person to be
>>>swayed to one position. For me, the evidence of nested hierarchy is
>>>enough to convince me that some (most?) evolution has taken place. If
>>>I didn't believe in a Supreme Being and didn't believe in
>>>extraterrestrials planting DNA-laced spores [chuckle], then I'd be
>>>swayed to fully embrace your position. After all, logically, what else
>>>would there be besides nested hierarchy?
>>
>>I'm not sure what you mean here. Again, you seem to be saying that
>>belief in God requires you to reject evolution, and I can't see why.
>
> No, not at all. It's just that a belief in the God of the Bible
> injects the possibility into my analysis that He placed various life
> forms at various times throughout history onto the earth and let them
> evolve.
>
> To be thorough, if the God of the Bible exists, then there is a
> competing theory in my analysis about how we got here.

That's not a problem. In science, we really don't care where competing
theories come from. All we care about is how they can be tested against
each other by the data. Your theory is easily falsified by the data,
most easily by the old nested hierarchy. If god placed various life
forms on the earth, then the descendants of one such form are unrelated
to the descendants of another, and we should see no hierarchical
relationships between them. All you have to do is define the kinds and
we can check. The problem is that you can't define the kinds because
there is no objective way to do so, and that should tell you something
right there.

Again, it's usually a bottom line position with creationists that humans
and apes belong to separate kinds. If that's your position too, then we
can deal with it easily. Turns out to be wrong. Now what?

[snip]

>>This is what comes of watching too many monster movies. Genetic research
>>is not going to create Godzilla, or even turn Bruce Banner into the Hulk.
>
> Why not? If genetics dictate around 75% of the characteristics of a
> life form and there are no inherent boundaries or restrictions to DNA
> mutation (forced or natural), then there should be no theoretical limit
> to what can be created under controlled conditions.
>
> If sharks don't get cancer and humans are biologically related to
> sharks (however distant), then an unrestricted ability to change DNA as
> we see fit should one day result in humans never getting cancer.
>
> If ants can move 100x (?) their body weight and humans and ants are
> related, then DNA manipulation in humans should one day result in the
> first 20,000 Lbs. benchpress.

Again, too many monster movies. There are no necessary genetic limits,
but there are physical limits. The mechanism that prevents cancer in
sharks may be incompatible with some essential feature of human
physiology. It may not, but you can't be confident that giving humans
shark genes will cure cancer.

Ants can move huge (to them) weights precisely because they are so
small. It's nothing genetic. Ant muscles are pretty much exactly as
strong, pound for pound, as human muscles. The strength of a muscle
depends on its cross-sectional area. Its weight depends on volume. The
ratio between area and volume changes with size, because area increases
as the square of size but volume increases as the cube. Don't go
counting on radioactive spiders to bite you.

> And why not Godzilla? DNA controls cellular reproduction, right? Just
> modify the DNA such that cells never stop multiplying in a controlled
> fashion. Then, you'll have muscle, bone, tendon, etc. growing to 50+
> feet long.

Godzilla is much bigger than that. Again, the cube/square relationship
puts a limit on the size of a Godzilla-shaped organism. An
elephant-sized mouse would have to look more like an elephant than a
mouse if he wanted to be able to stand up.

> As an interesting note, there is a Genesis verse (Gen. 11:6) which
> quotes God as saying that there would be no natural restraints on human
> accomplishment. So, now we humans have to power to control DNA as well
> as control the atom and even theorize quantum physics.

OK. Don't see why that's interesting, but OK.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable
    ... we do have the analogy with humans. ... Actually it is similar to the definition of God issue. ... Ape DNA to produce humans. ... ID would have a better shot at being science if it was somewhat more ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: God made pre-humans into people, Vatican newspaper says
    ... will of God, the creator, freely desired it, and man came to be." ... and concern into designing sensitive and valuable humans and into ... Assuming the divine spark cannot be measured ... by science, this dogma is religious and not scientific, and does not ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: BUNNY MELTDOWN!
    ... 51 Percent Believe God Created Humans ... may be on the verge of taking a step back with Pres. Palin and crew. ... The level of science teaching in schools has gone way downhill. ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)
  • Re: the struggle to learn
    ... Humans don't crave anything, except for food, water, shelter and ... The kind of science that produces results is the kind done in labs the ... So, you're not really here to speak of the glory of God, are you? ... the main scientific prop for scientific naturalism. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: BUNNY MELTDOWN!
    ... 51 Percent Believe God Created Humans ... may be on the verge of taking a step back with Pres. Palin and crew. ... The level of science teaching in schools has gone way downhill. ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)